Framework overlap

Does 3GPP 5G Security Architecture (TS 33.501) cover ETSI EN 303 645?

You hold 3GPP 5G Security Architecture (TS 33.501) and have been told to do ETSI EN 303 645. Here is how much overlaps, control by control.

13% of ETSI EN 303 645 you already have

3GPP 5G Security Architecture (TS 33.501) already covers about 13% of ETSI EN 303 645, leaving 13 of 15 controls as genuinely new work.

Already covered 0 Likely covered 2 New work 13

No control in 3GPP 5G Security Architecture (TS 33.501) maps directly to one in ETSI EN 303 645. Everything counted as covered is covered because both map to the same third standard, which is what a crosswalk is, but it is an inference rather than a lookup.

What is genuinely new work

Nothing in 3GPP 5G Security Architecture (TS 33.501) reaches these. This is the list to scope.

EN303645-5.0
Reporting implementation
EN303645-5.1
No universal default passwords
EN303645-5.10
Examine system telemetry data
EN303645-5.11
Make it easy for users to delete user data
EN303645-5.12
Make installation and maintenance of devices easy
EN303645-5.13
Validate input data
EN303645-5.2
Implement a means to manage reports of vulnerabilities
EN303645-5.3
Keep software updated
EN303645-5.6
Minimize exposed attack surfaces
EN303645-5.7
Ensure software integrity
EN303645-5.8
Ensure that personal data is secure
EN303645-5.9
Make systems resilient to outages
EN303645-6
Data Protection Provisions for Consumer IoT (Clause 6)
Show the 2 you already have
EN303645-5.4
Securely store sensitive security parameters
EN303645-5.5
Communicate securely

How this is calculated

Already covered means a mapping runs from a control in 3GPP 5G Security Architecture (TS 33.501) to that control. Likely covered means no direct mapping exists but both frameworks map to the same control in a third standard. New work means neither. We keep those separate rather than adding them into one friendlier number, because blending them would present a two-hop inference as a verified fact.

Coverage is not symmetric. Run it the other way and you will get a different number; both are correct.

From 332,959 cross-framework control mappings across 723 frameworks, 531 of them verified against their source documents. It does not tell you that you are compliant: a mapped control means the two standards ask for the same thing, not that you have done it.

Try another pair ยท Today's edition